Novelist and journalist Dave Hill

September 18, 2007

Peter Oborne's Political Class

As I've yet to read The Political Class, the new book by conservative political commentator Peter Oborne - some say he's of the paleo variety - I won't be daft enough to offer a judgement on it. You can get the flavour, though, from this extract in today's Mail and a feature summarising of its thesis in The Spectator. The latter contains the following:

"Before the emergence of the Political Class, the conventional mode of leadership was based on a vestigial idea of gentlemanly conduct. The style had been laid down by the Duke of Wellington in the early 19th century, both as a leader of men on the battlefield and later as Prime Minister and national icon. It was based on understatement, sobriety both in personal conduct and in speech, self-sacrifice, restraint. Wellington eschewed displays of private emotion, downplayed his personal achievements, and showed a studied indifference to public opinion...Margaret Thatcher, in certain of her leadership techniques, such as the use of methods and personnel drawn from commercial advertising, marked a turning-point. Her successor John Major attempted to revert to an earlier style, and was not successful. Tony Blair, however, exchanged this old school of leadership for a Political Class methodology which favoured display, self-promotion, knowingness and ostentation."

So far, so good. But these days is it possible for any large political figure to be like Wellington? And, if not, is it all politicians' fault? Love or loathe Tony Blair - and Oborne loathes him even more than I - his political style and substance were defined largely in inevitable response to the relentless rubbishing of the Labour Party by the right-wing media, of which Peter Oborne has long been a part. But there again, I've yet to read the book...

Comments

Whilst I thought Oborne had captured the essence of the current political class in his Spectator article, particularly with his description of their disregard for the judiciary, I had many quibbles with his characterisation of the Establishment of yore.

Am quite sure, for example, that huge swathes of them did not model themselves on the DoW, with many of them either taking their "Serve and Obey" public school mottos so literally as to render them deeply irrational and others displaying a woefully inaccurate sense of superiority which apparently rendered their views above criticism, and contributed to dreadful levels of ignorant prejudice - this often despite a strongly held Christian faith.

It was Wellington who coined the phrase "the scum of the earth", in reference to his own soldiers. Presumably Oborne wants a return to the days when our leaders had similarly forthright opinions over the peasants they were born to rule.

"the conventional mode of leadership was based on a vestigial idea of gentlemanly conduct... It was based on understatement, sobriety both in personal conduct and in speech, self-sacrifice, restraint."

During the Napoleonic Wars Britain's two leading statesmen, Fox and Pitt, were Olympic class boozers. Fox gambled away millions (in today's turns) before getting his father to bail him out with money he (the father) had embezzled from the state. He acquired several poxes and later married one of the leading courtesans of his age (Elizabeth Armistead).

Pitt pretty much stuck to drink for his vices. It's why he died so young.

However, it was common for the sober, restrained statesmen of this to launch effusive speeches during which tears would freely be shed. For instance, when Fox and Edmund Burke – a man I imagine Oborne would approve of – fell out over the French Revolution, there was scarcely a dry eye in the house: certainly not those of the two protagonists.

Wellington himself also managed to unbutton the restraints long enough to have a dalliance with another leading courtesan of the age - Harriet Wilson. When she offered to remove all references to him from her memoirs, Wellington had the honesty to respond with his famous 'publish and be damned'.

You don't think Oborne is making stuff up about the past to strengthen his arguments about the present, do you? That would be most ungentlemanly.